continuation from theist zone_souls and death

[tackattack]

---

1-Perhaps you could give me some standards?
3-a.material, I'm not sure which "that" you're reffering to but I assume it's a murder without an act of will behind it
b.material changed after accident, the immaterial self changed as well. Imagine it like this the immaterial self would be like walking around with a film crew that could tap into your thoughts. It would be third person perspective, record intent and action seperately. The camera crew caught you killing said dude, they would also record your personal motivations for that (which there were none because it was out of "character").The camera crew would know if you willfully intended to kill, acted on impule alone, were remorseful, had no connection to your emotional state, had no control over your actions, etc.
c. no, not in my opinion. A judeo Christian God, IMO judges off the intent while you're quantifying that action of the physical "evil" by social standards a soul would record the intent and reasoning by which we are judged.

1. What do you mean by stndards? If you mean research then here is one paper submitted and peer reviewed to the British Medical Journal http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...74/?page=1
2. ?
3. Good OK then:
a) then a god would not judge me for murder
b) despite that fact this is analogy does not work, I do not see how if the soul is an observer if it is damaged by material events. Also if the soul is an observer it isn't really me, just an avatar of me (and vice versa) and therefore it surviving death means nothing to me.
c) then why does a god allow pyscopaths to be born and/or created by circumstance. Surely this is negligent. They are compelled to do evil, have no free will to control the urge and do not have to pay for their crimes? Surely he could instruct the soul to intervene?

---

1-Well if there's no circulation and you wait for actual brain damage to occur from starvation, and expect any of the 609 to recover, that's crazy. If waiting for the brain to turn to a puddle of ooze is your criteria for actual death then there's not much room for recovery. I'm not trying to prove people can come back from the dead like zombies; I just think there is support that when the brain is inable to function it something is still functioning, I was talking about what your reasonable standards would be to establish total death and what sample size would be necessary. Let's keep this point about evidentiar standards for simplicities sake.
2- will resolve the definition first, I didn't forget it
3-
a) not if by you you mean the physical sense of yourself and your actions alone in a predominantly physical universe
b) Why doesn't it work? It fits the definition. It is not damaged by material events, any more than the tape in the camera man's tape is damaged by filming somone getting killed. Could you please elaborate a little more on "just an avatar of me" and what you mean by " (and vice versa) ". As far as it's worth to you that's I suppose that could be valid based on your elaboration of the above.
c) You're presuming the soul is meant to intervene when by my definition it's meant to inform. That's something else entirely. I don't know if God has to allow pyscopaths to be born and/or created by circumstance. Wouldn't that interfere with causality and free will? I know in the example we're using someone with no free will, but that's the exception, not the rule. Practically, death is necessary. Opportunity to do good or evil, hardships and triumphs are tools for growth and understanding. I would be negligent if it serves no purpose and is not a direct consequence of free will.